Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hotam Singh vs State Of M.P. on 28 June, 2016
1 CRR.360.2009
Hotam Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and other
28.06.2016
Shri R.K. Sharma, counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Mohd. Irshad, Panel Lawyer, for the
respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2 though notice
of this revision has been served.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the
parties, heard them finally.
The applicants have challenged the order
dated 29.04.2009 passed by the V Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC) Ambah, District Morena
(M.P.) in ST No.148/2007 whereby the application
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., filed by the
complainant Smt. Rani Tomar was accepted and
warrants were issued against the applicants.
Facts of the case, in short, are that the
complainant Smt. Rani Tomar (PW-1) had lodged an FIR against four accused persons namely, Jabar Singh, Rajbahadur, Chhote Singh and Chhote Pappu to the effect that they entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted the deceased Rustam Singh. When the complainant and Sitambar Singh tried to save the deceased Rustam Singh then the accused persons assaulted them also and therefore Smt. Rani Tomar and Sitambar Singh also sustained minor injuries. The deceased Rustam Singh sustained 2 CRR.360.2009 Hotam Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and other head injury and therefore, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, however, in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the various witnesses have stated that when the accused persons committed the crime applicants came at the scene of crime and they dragged the deceased Rustam Singh. However, it was not alleged that any of the applicants had assaulted either deceased Rustam Singh or the complainant Smt. Rani Tomar and injured Sitambar Singh.
After examination of the complainant Smt. Rani Tomar, on 07.08.2008, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant Smt. Rani Tomar through her counsel and the same was dismissed by the trial court on 19.08.2008 on the pretext that there was no sufficient evidence available at that time. However, again, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 12.01.2009 and vide order dated 29.04.2009, the trial court accepted the application and warrants were issued against the applicants.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the FIR was lodged by the 3 CRR.360.2009 Hotam Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and other complainant Smt. Rani Tomar (PW-1) in which the overt act of all the accused persons was clearly mentioned. The deceased sustained four injuries as shown in the MLC report and he died due to head injuries sustained by him whereas it was clearly mentioned in the FIR that which injury was caused by the concerned accused. Similarly, the injuries caused to Smt. Rani Tomar and Samundar Singh were duly attributed to the accused persons against whom the FIR was lodged. After sometime, when the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, the eyewitnesses stated that the applicants dragged the deceased Rustam Singh from his house and took him towards the field and thereafter, they ran away. Looking to the head injury of deceased Rustam Singh, he must have turned unconscious and therefore, it was not possible for the applicants to drag him up to the fields and if they thought that Rustam Singh was alive even during dragging they would not have left him alive. On the contrary, they would have assaulted and killed him but unfortunately, no eyewitness could show the overt act of any of the applicants that they assaulted the deceased Rustam Singh or the victims Smt. Rani Tomar and Samundar Singh.
Under these circumstances where number of injuries caused to the deceased as well as 4 CRR.360.2009 Hotam Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and other victims were duly connected with the existing accused persons in the FIR and thereafter there was no possibility for the complainant to tell about the assault done by the applicants. When the entire quarrel was complete then there was no need to the applicants to drag the dead body of the deceased Rustam Singh upto the fields and when they had an opportunity they did not further assault the deceased Rustam Singh. There is no allegation that they assaulted the complainant Smt. Rani Tomar or victim Samundar Singh.
Under these circumstances, it appears that there was no confusion to the complainant while lodging the FIR but after lodging the FIR they have tried to implicate the applicants while statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and therefore no natural overt act of the applicants could be informed by these witnesses.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie, it appears that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the matter. No clear overt act of these applicants is mentioned by the eyewitnesses which could be corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant should have been dismissed. The impugned order 5 CRR.360.2009 Hotam Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and other passed by the trial court appears to be perverse and therefore it is the duty of this Court to interfere in that order under revisionary powers.
Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants, namely, Hotam Singh, Shiv Singh and Rajesh Singh is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2009 is hereby set aside relating to application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The trial court is directed to drop the proceedings against the applicants.
Copy of the order passed today be sent to the trial court along with its record for information and to proceed further with the trial.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd